America's Debate hosts the best in news, government, and political debate. Register now to take part in the most civil and constructive debate on the Internet. Join the community, and get ready to be challenged!

Current events are mass public displays of disgust that guns are used to kill people. They wish the world to know they do not like people being killed with guns. It appears there is much back clapping and rejoicing about their successful out cry.

Meanwhile, we are having primaries. At least here in Illinois we did. Big money backed candidates are winning the primaries. Yep. These will be ones we have as options in the general elections from our blessed two major parties. Big money is behind both choices. Who do you think is gonna win? I predict big money.

Meanwhile, a spending bill is passed and signed. A huge spending bill. There is not money to pay for it. Along with many areas, the bill spends unprecedented amounts on military. Yes, we wish to kill people with guns or even better mass killing devices. Is there any dissent from the public? How about those participating in the marches? Voters like guns. Lots of guns. Whatever force government wishes is theirs.

People are blooming ignorant. They do not know. They don't really care. But hey, they do go on marches. They are looking good. Who needs a idea or a real principle when you can look good?

Is there any hope that voters will base their voting upon real principles or are we stuck with grandstanding and choosing big money candidates who seem to give advantage to the right people (at the expense of the wrong people)?

Is there any hope that voters will base their voting upon real principles or are we stuck with grandstanding and choosing big money candidates who seem to give advantage to the right people (at the expense of the wrong people)?

That last chart shows how much of the budget is left after "mandatory" (aka entitlements plus interest on the debt) spending is spent. Soon there won't be ANY money in the budget left at all for any discretionary spending.Not much...less than 20 percent now and shrinking. That first graph shows military spending is just a little over twice what we spend in interest on our debt.

This is a big problem. No matter how knowledgable a person is, the figures here amount to a load of trouble. And, candidly, I'm not sure who the "right" people are.

I've learned quite a bit in the past couple of years since my spouse has this new gig. It's pretty high profile and political.And mostly what I've learned is...I can't believe anyone would actually WANT to hold office. Especially with social media. A person in a high profile leadership position is a very large target. There is little privacy and fewer privacy protections. There's really little advantage I can think of to put yourself in that position, it's just too costly, personally, and there's little gain.

One thing I've definitely learned....most problems are better solved at the "local" level. The less local discretion there is, the less efficient everything. There's a reason large bureaucracies become so inefficient. We see this in the military, and now in the USAF there is a push to give squadron commanders (the "local" commanders) more autonomy and take away the over reaching regulations and mandates from higher command. That saves time and money for everyone.

The later. We're stuck, like chuck. You lay out the corrupt values decently, but I've never seen you lay out the corrupting force, behind our corrupted values. Why do we think its ok for police to kill citizens, because they aren't following orders or making officers feel they are in mortal danger? Why do we think it is ok for our soldiers to scour the world killing humans from other countries, when our "corrupt" politicians deem them enemy? Why do we think we have a right to make deals with corrupt regimes to the lands resources and then "defend " those "interests" from the people who have resided in that area for tens of thousands years? Why do we think it is OK for our intelligence community to cause strife, turmoil, and act as destabilizing forces to create havoc that ultimately leads to the deaths of thousands?

I've debated you all for years and I can tell you that the further right you go the harder it is to reach you all about the corruption. However, isn't that what corruption is? In essence the heart is corrupt when acts of evil are deemed good.

Look, just so you know the corruption started at our inception, so its hard to get away from. Imagine, just imagine, thinking that a slave owners TRULY believed in freedom, that they fought for freedom, that they died for freedom. Imagine how perverse the idea of freedom must have been from the early start.

Its hard to be patriotic in this nation and understand freedom. I know my words will antagonize so many here. But it's just sad to think how the mass narcissism allows so much to be justified.

About freedom.

First, property has nothing to do with liberty or freedom. I know many will disagree with this opinion. But this is the source of the corruption. From the founding of this nation the founders created a government that stole the freedom of human beings in the name of "property rights". You know what many present day Americans do about this? Make justifications. "Oh it was a different time" As if freedom meant something different in 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th century. Deflect: "Why did Africans sell slaves?"

About power.

When are conservatives and libertarians going to start fighting power, rather than basking in it?

You want to stop "Big money" in politics, but what do you want to do as a libertarian or conservative about... BIG MONEY?!?! If you allow BIG MONEY in your society, but don't understand power and influence that will inevitably come from that BIG MONEY, who is the ignorant one? I'm truly perplexed when I try to understand the rationale and the justifications used in the name of "freedom." But I've been seeing it for over ten years on this board, full of intelligent individuals from all sides.

I've watched as people have had their hypocrisy on display and merely shrug it off as "false equivalency". "Its different from when we send our country men over there to kill tem and when they send their country men to kill us. You can't compare the two Droop. We kill them for freedom, they kill because they are evil." The right gets the history all wrong "We never did anything to them to make them hate us" Well actually we did this, this, this, and that. "Oh, you want to blame America, Droop" As if, America is a person.

We are economically crippling these human beings, we are destabilizing the governments of those human beings, but as long as our government tells us its in the name of freedom, we will rationalize anything. And I don't know what it is about the politics of the Right wing but the further right you go it is demonstrable the more you will see the rationalization of taking human life and justifying it as a "good thing". Libertarians, you're not as bad, but you are close.

Find your humanity, bring that humanity into your politics, and you will slow the corruption you hate.

Just thinking further, there is only one job I can think of that would be worse than being a political leader (or high ranking leader in any position that is de facto political). Law enforcement officer. It's really astounding to me people are willing to do it. The risk/reward ratio doesn't figure. I think it must be kind of like the military. People do it because that's what their parents did, and/or they have some sort of moral compulsion.

At any rate, as incentives to serve start falling, there won't be incentives to serve. This is particularly true of leadership positions. If you wouldn't want it, why would anyone else?It's a paradox as we need good leaders but it's increasingly costly for good people to serve.Guess I should add the caveat that good leadership with the responsibility of actually solving real problems, is the tough one. If the enterprise exists with leadership solely responsible for complaining and passing the responsibility to others, well....that's an easy and low bar to fill.

Just thinking further, there is only one job I can think of that would be worse than being a political leader (or high ranking leader in any position that is de facto political). Law enforcement officer. It's really astounding to me people are willing to do it. The risk/reward ratio doesn't figure. I think it must be kind of like the military. People do it because that's what their parents did, and/or they have some sort of moral compulsion.

At any rate, as incentives to serve start falling, there won't be incentives to serve. This is particularly true of leadership positions. If you wouldn't want it, why would anyone else?It's a paradox as we need good leaders but it's increasingly costly for good people to serve.Guess I should add the caveat that good leadership with the responsibility of actually solving real problems, is the tough one. If the enterprise exists with leadership solely responsible for complaining and passing the responsibility to others, well....that's an easy and low bar to fill.

OR.... maybe military recruiters offering all kinds of financial incentives to middle class and poor teenagers has something to do with it.

I mean, what kind of moral compulsion would make you want to go over to another country and kill other human beings?

What kind of moral compulsion would cause an officer of the law to shoot an unarmed citizen or even an armed citizen before they are being shot at themselves or their lives are indeed in mortal jeopardy? Where is the morality in taking human life over property?

That's not morality of a higher level. It is a corrupted sense of morality if you want to call it morality at all.

I read your caveat, so i will leave my comments about politicians to this. There are no shortage of bad people who seek power and lust for greater authority.

There are no shortage of videos and documentaries showing the disgrace of a justice system we have. There is nothing moral about it. 25 years for non violent crimes, sentencing disparities along racial lines (article just came out from Florida), prosecutorial tactics of PILING on charges to coerce a confession to circumvent the exercising of their 6th Amendment. The "land of the free" is number 1 in the world per capita in putting our citizens in bondage. Old habits die hard i guess.

My point is I'd love to see "good" conservatives and right wing politicians whether Libertarian or Republican fight for this reform. But there are only a handful willing. That's why though i would not vote for him, I respect Rand Paul more and more, as a person of decent political character.

I'm not ignorant to the corrosive effects of power and authority or the allure. So its not hard to understand why people want to be police, politicians, or in leadership positions. But i guess if you were a little more blind to it, maybe because you are surrounded by powerful people, you could see all the drawbacks without seeing all the benefits that are outweigh those deterrents. Its got to be hard to see "how good you got it" if it is just your everyday life. That goes for any of us.

OR.... maybe military recruiters offering all kinds of financial incentives to middle class and poor teenagers has something to do with it.

True for the first four years or so....after that not so much. People in leadership positions aren't doing it for the educational benefits, and salaries on the outside are typically higher and less stressful by far.

QUOTE

I'm not ignorant to the corrosive effects of power and authority or the allure. So its not hard to understand why people want to be police, politicians, or in leadership positions. But i guess if you were a little more blind to it, maybe because you are surrounded by powerful people, you could see all the drawbacks without seeing all the benefits that are outweigh those deterrents. Its got to be hard to see "how good you got it" if it is just your everyday life. That goes for any of us.

And some of us have lived in both worlds, and I can tell you there's little if anything for an honest person to look forward to in a leadership position.I'm very curious what you believe these "good things" to be (assuming honest leadership)? Tell me about "how good they got it". If you'd "love to see good people" in these positions...what incentive do those good people have to serve in those positions?

True for the first four years or so....after that not so much. People in leadership positions aren't doing it for the educational benefits, and salaries on the outside are typically higher and less stressful by far.

Well past the 4 years, the benefits of serving don't run out after 4 years. I tell you what, treat the military like any other corporate job, and see how many people put up those uniforms in closets.

I know full well the benefits and the dangers of serving.

So, I'll say it again, there are NO shortage of people who like power, authority, and influence. Not everyone wants to be in a leadership, but I've never seen a leadership position that didn't have more applicants than it had positions. You know how many corporals didn't want to be sergeants when i was in the Marines? Well, I don't know either, but i know i never met ONE!! Never met a Captain that didn't want to be Major, with exception to the Captains that wanted to get out altogether.

I'm not going to sit here and list the extreme benefits or deterrents to being in the military or in leadership positions. I know, you KNOW them. I'm just like ....puuuuuuuhleeeaase can we stop with this idea of the these "poor leaders in powerful positions".

QUOTE

And some of us have lived in both worlds, and I can tell you there's little if anything for an honest person to look forward to in a leadership position.I'm very curious what you believe these "good things" to be (assuming honest leadership)? Tell me about "how good they got it". If you'd "love to see good people" in these positions...what incentive do those good people have to serve in those positions?

I'd argue that a "honest" person wouldn't look for the incentive of leadership outside the already built-in incentive of being a person of authority for which people put their TRUST in. Leadership is the burden of caring for other people.

Individual orientated people, or people looking for incentives, will be even easier to corrupt.

Leadership is supposed to be a burden. Good leaders for me love people, not "their people", just people. That's my opinion. It's not gospel, it's not a fact, just my opinion. People-orientated leaders desire is to help people. Their personal priorities and belief system will naturally align with the burden of leadership.

So, I'll say it again, there are NO shortage of people who like power, authority, and influence.

True dat. I'm not arguing there is a shortage of people who like power, authority and influence. I am arguing that there is a shortage of GOOD people for positions of power, authority, and influence.

QUOTE

Not everyone wants to be in a leadership, but I've never seen a leadership position that didn't have more applicants than it had positions.

See above.

QUOTE

I'm not going to sit here and list the extreme benefits or deterrents to being in the military or in leadership positions. I know, you KNOW them.

I sure do. See above earlier posts.

QUOTE

I'd argue that a "honest" person wouldn't look for the incentive of leadership outside the already built-in incentive of being a person of authority for which people put their TRUST in. Leadership is the burden of caring for other people.Individual orientated people, or people looking for incentives, will be even easier to corrupt. Leadership is supposed to be a burden. Good leaders for me love people, not "their people", just people. That's my opinion. It's not gospel, it's not a fact, just my opinion. People-orientated leaders desire is to help people. Their personal priorities and belief system will naturally align with the burden of leadership.

Wow. EXCELLENT platitudes. This apply to other types of service? "An honest nurse wouldn't look for incentive outside of the already built in incentive of helping people...""An honest teacher wouldn't look for incentive outside of the already built in incentive of helping people...."For years they used to tell airmen, "Service before self...hey, you don't like moving every year? Don't like 12 month deployments? Don't like it when your kid has to go to five different schools in four years? Tough crap! An "honest" soldier would't care about anything but service!"Yeh...they don't say that anymore. They might not act as though they care about soldiers...but they at least give them lip service and pretend they do. Because they had to. People stopped wanting to serve. You've already asserted that our leadership are ipso facto corrupt killers in your estimation. Ah yes, how could anyone turn down the privilege of serving such thankful individuals.

Benefits of leadership: Helping people.Disadvantages: No privacy, lots of stress, total responsibility, extreme hardship for families.

As a side note, our little base went from worst maintenance in the country to best, in under a year. No increase in manpower or funding. The change was so profound they got a call from the Whitehouse OMB to schedule a meeting to find out how they did it. Lots of people have been helped during our time here...but I'm glad retirement awaits in just three more months or so.

True dat. I'm not arguing there is a shortage of people who like power, authority and influence. I am arguing that there is a shortage of GOOD people for positions of power, authority, and influence.

Agreed, but at issue in a big part is the diverging ideas of left and right in this nation on what "Good" looks like. Does "good" look like business interests? Does "good" look like just helping people you identify with. Does "good" look like doing whatever it takes so that you children have the best life money can buy?

QUOTE

Wow. EXCELLENT platitudes. This apply to other types of service? "An honest nurse wouldn't look for incentive outside of the already built in incentive of helping people...""An honest teacher wouldn't look for incentive outside of the already built in incentive of helping people...."

I thought you might say something like this and calling this way of thinking "platitudes" goes along with many conservative worldviews, IMO. I don't feel I am talking in platitudes and to answer your question, 100%, yes that would apply to those services. Those services more than many others.

You may think that I'm saying nurses, teachers, leaders, etc shouldn't care about their livelihoods and their ability to live decent lives, but that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying I don't want teachers who are incentivized by wealth as much as I want teachers that enjoy teaching. And I think if teachers are well paid, then their focus wouldn't be on "getting paid" as much as teaching.

QUOTE

For years they used to tell airmen, "Service before self...hey, you don't like moving every year? Don't like 12 month deployments? Don't like it when your kid has to go to five different schools in four years? Tough crap! An "honest" soldier would't care about anything but service!"Yeh...they don't say that anymore. They might not act as though they care about soldiers...but they at least give them lip service and pretend they do. Because they had to. People stopped wanting to serve.

Great don't treat other human like objects or property. That's a great step for the Air Force. Why do you think they started treating other human beings like that. Maybe the leaders lacked compassion? Was it the "bleeding heart liberals" running the show, treating Airmen like garbage Mrs P? I doubt it.

QUOTE

You've already asserted that our leadership are ipso facto corrupt killers in your estimation. Ah yes, how could anyone turn down the privilege of serving such thankful individuals.

Thankful.... mmmmm...

What I asserted was.. We allow law enforcement to kill our citizens, without themselves being in mortal danger, without legal repercussion; we claim that our founders held a great understanding of freedom though they were slave owners; we cause and have caused a great deal of death and human suffering in the world directly and indirectly; we are number 1 per capita in putting our citizens in cages, maybe a few other thing. You could address any of these claims if you want, or just make sarcastic comments.

And you want people to be thankful? Why do you think these things are "good"? Do you think great wealth and power is a "good" thing. I understand it natural to want wealth and power, I'm human, you're human. But that the corrupt nature in me, not the altruistic nature of my being.

It be nice to see leaders "serving" period.

QUOTE

Benefits of leadership: Helping people.Disadvantages: No privacy, lots of stress, total responsibility, extreme hardship for families.

Wow. You sure do have a peculiar way of seeing things. I guess such is the way of power, distorts things, just a bit.

Abu Ghraib. How high up in the leadership pole did that "total responsibility" go? You got one officer that got a letter of reprimand... and retired. You had another officer acquitted. One officer lost one grade of rank, the person above her was promoted. At the bottom of that totem pole were a bunch of enlisted service members who served time in the Brig and receiving dishonorable and bad conduct discharges for following bad orders.

Total responsibility my ... Oh privacy, who has that anymore with a government that can just plug into your cell phone? Oh that's right, many see Edward Snowden as a traitor for telling us that? Are you getting an idea of how corruption works when the people who go public to the world exposing our WRONGS are the people we consider traitors? You probably don't. But that's just my opinion, feel free to engage it.

QUOTE

As a side note, our little base went from worst maintenance in the country to best, in under a year. No increase in manpower or funding. The change was so profound they got a call from the Whitehouse OMB to schedule a meeting to find out how they did it. Lots of people have been helped during our time here...but I'm glad retirement awaits in just three more months or so.

Great Job! So how did they do it? And who is they?

IF the answer is "EVERY human that had to work in that command", then "I'm with ya!!!" If the answer is "My man and the other leadership" you can "kick rocks" I'm not saying that leadership isn't important, it is EXTREMELY important. But GOOD change happens when people come together work together in a fair and equitable manner for the greater good of everyone. Welcome to beginners class of "the Left"!

As a side note, our little base went from worst maintenance in the country to best, in under a year. No increase in manpower or funding. The change was so profound they got a call from the Whitehouse OMB to schedule a meeting to find out how they did it. Lots of people have been helped during our time here...but I'm glad retirement awaits in just three more months or so.

Great Job! So how did they do it? And who is they?

IF the answer is "EVERY human that had to work in that command", then "I'm with ya!!!" If the answer is "My man and the other leadership" you can "kick rocks" I'm not saying that leadership isn't important, it is EXTREMELY leadership. But GOOD change happens when people come together work together in a fair and equitable manner for the greater good of everyone. Welcome to beginners class of "the Left"!

Yes, every human worked very hard. And every human had been working very hard in that command up until my spouse took over. In fact, they were working longer hours before he showed up. They were working 12 hour shifts, 5 days a week. Since that wasn't working, the higher ups wanted them to work seven 12 hour days a week. Things were so bad (being last and all), my spouse walked into a very difficult situation. He spent the night hours (after long days) asking the night crews what was going on. He found one guy he nicknamed the "angry tech sgt". He asked him what was going on and the guy told him, "I'm the last person you want to talk to. I'm the most jaded person here. I have only a few months left and I'm getting out as soon as I can."So...Mr P naturally said, "You're definitely the person I want to talk to..."And he listened. And implemented a lot of changes...and people thought he was crazy until they worked (it didn't take long). There are so so many things he has done here. The "angry tech sgt" applied to officer training school now. He wants to stay in. And now instead of 12 hour days 5 days a week, they work 9 hours four days a week (and often get goal days....days off for getting all the sorties finished). Yes, it's amazing what people can do. He cut down meetings too...as I mentioned above there's something to the "locality" aspect, he doesn't need people to explain to him that they are doing their jobs (unless something is going wrong). So, so many man hours saved. Consider for a one hour briefing to the installation commander, a staff has to come up with the brief, and send it on to their bosses, and their bosses, until it is polished. They don't want the commander to ask any questions they can't answer so all potential questions are fielded as well. At the end of things, about 20 hours are probably spent getting ready for that one hour briefing. So he cut about 90 percent of them out.Mr P told them all he doesn't expect ready answers and they're all working meetings so no "stump the dummy" type questions. That saves time. If they don't know, they'll get back to him. The temperature in the hangars in summer was about 120 degrees but no one would order cooling suits for the mechanics. This went on for years. When we arrived he couldn't believe it, and asked them to order suits. They procrastinated and said they couldn't find the right ones. So, he started doing commander roll call in the hangars with the doors closed. 120 degree heat, the commanders were all sweating. They got their cooling suits. There's a lot more...the above happened in the first few months. At any rate, done talking.

As much of an impact as he made, as proud as I am and as good as the people are (and they are very good, the best thing about the military)...very glad this is it for us. It's a very difficult life. Obviously I'm so drunk with power I don't know how great I have it! Oh, it will be so sad when my every move isn't scrutinized, I don't have to worry about constant micro-offense, and I have freedom (to say what I want, go/not go where I want, wear what I want, hang out with whomever I want and not have to ask protocol to give me a list of people I have to include/can't include).

Is there any hope that voters will base their voting upon real principles or are we stuck with grandstanding and choosing big money candidates who seem to give advantage to the right people (at the expense of the wrong people)?

In some professions, we have regulators, often backed up with legal force. Bodies like the American Bar Association, or the AMA, can suspend or disbar legal or medical practitioners for bad behaviour, for set periods or (sometimes) for life. Practitioners have to pass basic competence and ethical standards tests to be able to practice in the first place - often higher level tests for particular areas of specialism or high levels of responsibility.

Passing the competence tests isn't a guarantee of employment in your chosen specialism or profession. You can be ABA registered but not get any legal work, because you can't get enough clients to trust you. You can be AMA registered in a surgical specialism but unless you can convince a panel of interviewers in the hospital where you want to work that you'd be a good surgeon for them, you'll never get to legally pick up a scalpel and apply it to anyone's flesh.

And anyone pretending to be qualified when they are not is in a whole world of trouble. They might get away with it for a while, but if they get caught, they'll do time.

Some jurisdictions go further and require similar registers of trades people like plumbers, heating engineers or electricians who - after all - could kill people through competence. Sensibly, this isn't something we leave to just market forces - if the gas supply to your water heater is incorrectly fitted, your sewage outflow pipe links into your drinking water supply, or your mains electricity is wired so that every metal surface in your house has 250V going through it, it's going to be no consolation to your smoking or dehydrated corpse, or to the many small exploded pieces of it, that your selected trades person will lose business when it becomes known that they aren't very good at their job.

I have come to believe that many of the problems we face in mature democracies (not just in the USA but around the world) is that there are two professions which we do not regulate in this way.

Those two professions are journalism, and politics. If we regulate plumbers and lawyers, why not?

Think about it.

All the fake news stuff - if journalists had to pass tests of their professional competence and ethical standards tests, and the country passed a law saying that all news organisations had to employ registered journalists, what would happen? They'd be allowed to hire non-registered journalists, but if the tests meant anything, the registered ones would flag their qualifications on everything they ever wrote. "John Q Journalist, AJA" in their byline in the press, online, and even on Twitter etc. Pretty soon, it'd be pretty easy to tell how much to trust anything we see, hear or read because we'd know 'AJA' meant we weren't being spun, and not seeing it would mean whatever it was could only be opinion. It might be true, but it wouldn't have as much weight.

Would those tests allow them to print or publish complete fiction, that they know to be untrue at the time of writing? Would someone who had taken the time and trouble to qualify as a journalist and then register as one before they could practice as one, and who stood to lose that prestige (and, possibly, the ability to practise their trade). Not just a trade body, and not just a union, a proper professional associated, with the power to prevent anyone found to have broken professional standards from practising again.

Note that I'm not saying anything that infringes on the First Amendment - nobody's right to free speech is in jeopardy, nor is press freedom. They can still tell lies. But their would be (enforceable) professional (rather than legal) consequences for telling lies. The only legal test would be "was the evidence available at the time of writing sufficient to convince a jury that the story was true on balance of probability?". If it was, even if it was later found not to be, publish away. If it wasn't, the writer risks losing their accreditation (and the editor if there was one).

That's just an example - it's off topic here to thrash out the rights and wrongs.

Now apply that same to politics. Why not have a professional association for them, too, so total novices who don't know the basics of the constitution (er, can't think of any prominent examples, so this probably doesn't matter *cough*)? There are already qualifying factors set up in the US Constitution (e.g. Presidential candidates have to be 35 or older and have to be born a US citizen, not naturalised as one, etc), so the precedent is already set that not just anybody can stand. This is just about extending what those qualifications should be. And not just for the presidency - standing for local sheriff, or the council or school board etc. you should understand the applicable electoral law and the standards expected of you. I'm just saying we should require that level of understanding and responsibility before people stand for election, and not just hope that someone will ask about it during the campaign and the responses (good or bad) will be widely-enough publicised to be able to make an impact (good or bad) on the electoral result.

That's all we do now, and it clearly isn't working. As Einstein almost said, doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity, so we don't just need to keep the electoral rules the same (or the journalistic ones, though that's off-topic) and hope to suddenly get higher quality candidates. We need to change the rules.

Why not disbar politicians found to be crooked or persistent liars from standing for office again? Why not, even, sack them from office if they're deemed unfit to be in it after their election, and either allow them to stand again or bar them from doing so?

Why not, even - and this is where the fun REALLY starts - have the regulatory body staffed by jury-selected members of the public? Not a court - this is a professional matter and no law has been broken (yet). That way, it's still "the People" who have control over who does or doesn't hold office.

Just like the ABA or AMA, you're only qualifying to stand for election. You still have to campaign and you still have to win. But if you do, you have to behave yourself, or else you might get disciplined, suspended or even sacked.

Electorates have short memories, and convincing masses of people to ignore something you did at the start of your term isn't hard when mass media (new or old) is your tool to do it. You may be exposed as unsuitable during the campaign, but if nobody can trust the media (maybe it is on topic after all) your unsuitability stops being fact and becomes opinion, especially if you have enough money to use the media to your best advantage (whether than medium is the Washington Post or some newfangled nexus of Facebook/Cambridge Analytica/Russia). But to convince 12 people, face to face - especially if they get to ask their own questions rather than having it all mediated by lawyers, more like a work disciplinary panel and less like a court jury? That's going to require demonstrable, testable evidence, from both sides of the case.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. But if is broke, don't carry on using it and complaining about the poor results you get, get yourself the necessary tools to fix the damned thing, and fix it. And both politics and the media are - at least in my opinion - broken.

Obviously I'm so drunk with power I don't know how great I have it! Oh, it will be so sad when my every move isn't scrutinized, I don't have to worry about constant micro-offense, and I have freedom (to say what I want, go/not go where I want, wear what I want, hang out with whomever I want and not have to ask protocol to give me a list of people I have to include/can't include).

Sounds like you guys could get with Lifetime producers make a reality TV show of "Military Wives." Trust me i know all about the "protocol" you are talking about. And yes its steeped in ideas of segregation and separation and maintaining the illusion of your spouses power. Some feel it necessary for good order and discipline. Logic being, you hang out with some enlisted person wife because you all are friends, or get along, something happens to her husband like he gets out of an assignment or get a promotion and people scream favoritism. The people may draw a line from the enlisted man -> his wife -> to you, a senior officers wife -> to your husband a senior officer. A game of smoke and mirrors, a game of perception, a modern day game of the Nobles (officers) and the common folk (enlisted). I remember the game, the more i saw it the less i wanted to play it. My choice. You may not liked the game, but saw the benefits or were convinced of the benefits of playing. You and your husband choice.

If you and your husband are tired of that game, i am glad you will be free of it.

To be honest, i'm not too keen on talking about your personal life... because its a landmine. I'm not here to disparage your family or you. That being said, i will make disparaging remarks about certain ideas, behaviors, and belief systems you hold. I welcome debators to do the same to me. I do it to you, you can probably deal. I start doing it in a way you feel i am attacking your family, you are going to take it personal and that's not my intention.

However, looking at your situation you lay out. You have the worker class and the ruling class. The working class was being misused, because decisions of the ruling class. A new ruler over the ruling and the working class came in with the idea to make things better. After identifying the issue, the new ruler in his own way punished the ruling class for the mistreatment of the working class. Dispersed power from the ruling class into the working class so that increase effectiveness, efficiency, and more importantly, built up morale of the working class. side note: A similar method was used in a leadership book called "Turn this ship around" by L. David Marquet.

But Mrs. P ask yourself, why did the new ruler have to do this to the ruling class. Why couldn't they do these very simple things? its not hard to NOT treat people like trash. That doesn't take a lot of effort to treat human being decently. The answer lies in POWER, the corrupting nature of POWER, and the ignorance of it.

Take that philosophy of dispersing power, apply it to your politics, and again, welcome to "the left!!" Societies need "rulers" that will force the "ruling class" to release years of consolidated power from the "ruling class" back to the "working class". This is not the same as making politics local, because localities may very well create a ruling class that consolidates power from the working class.

Now when you look at a capitalist system, what is power? How is influence spread? How can power be consolidated? How would we disperse it to the working class?

Just answering these question will stop the "ignorance" grey seal addresses in his opening post. Formulating and executing a plan to disperse the power from a ruling class to the working class will lessen the corruption.

Jules, I like the idea of screening our journalists and politicians for competency. I'm no really sure about the finer points, but at least with journalists there would be some standard for accountability which would raise the bar. At present, it seems to begin and end with "entertainment value" alone rather than information value.

QUOTE(droop224 @ Apr 5 2018, 08:20 AM)

Sounds like you guys could get with Lifetime producers make a reality TV show of "Military Wives."

Heh, illegal I'm sure. That would be nightmare anyway as it's anonymity I desire. Badly. It's actually hellishly awkward for everyone to know who you are, wherever you go (especially when you usually don't know/recognize them).

QUOTE

But Mrs. P ask yourself, why did the new ruler have to do this to the ruling class. Why couldn't they do these very simple things? its not hard to NOT treat people like trash. That doesn't take a lot of effort to treat human being decently. The answer lies in POWER, the corrupting nature of POWER, and the ignorance of it.

Take that philosophy of dispersing power, apply it to your politics, and again, welcome to "the left!!" Societies need "rulers" that will force the "ruling class" to release years of consolidated power from the "ruling class" back to the "working class". This is not the same as making politics local, because localities may very well create a ruling class that consolidates power from the working class.

Now when you look at a capitalist system, what is power? How is influence spread? How can power be consolidated? How would we disperse it to the working class?

Just answering these question will stop the "ignorance" grey seal addresses in his opening post. Formulating and executing a plan to disperse the power from a ruling class to the working class will lessen the corruption.

There’s a very long answer to that, but the short answer is: large organizations tend to focus on processes over results. It happens slowly with time (typically as more and more regulations are added). That’s why a large contractor might take a year to put in a sink…but they can point to a “process” to offer an explanation of why it’s taking/took so long. There’s always something. Organizations that focus on processes tend to have lots of administrative overhead. Government entities are the worst…but large private entities can become similar (both working together socializing costs and privatizing gains are the worst of all). There's a reason there are 2.5 people handling insurance claims for every doctor.

I worked at a nursing home where there were more administrators than staff. I’d have two CNAs and only myself for a hall of 50 patients. We’d be running around the hall while the administrators were upstairs drinking coffee and discussing processes they could come up with (and I would need to implement of course) on how I could do my job more efficiently. Yes it would’ve been nice if someone had asked my opinion (even better, the CNAs). But our opinions weren’t so material, it’s what they could put on paper to prove they considered…and we were always replaceable and problems could be blamed on us.

Mrs. Pigpen, The budget. Mandatory Spending. This mandatory spending needs to end. It could be replaced, short term before ending it all, as funding for the lowest capable 10% of the society. No more government management of the upper 90%. The upper 90% can hire their own advisors and personal managers if they are so inclined.

Local level government. I call it regional government. Smaller regional units are better (more efficient and responsive). What should be the smallest regional unit? A county?

droop224

QUOTE(droop224)

I mean, what kind of moral compulsion would make you want to go over to another country and kill other human beings?

What kind of moral compulsion would cause an officer of the law to shoot an unarmed citizen or even an armed citizen before they are being shot at themselves or their lives are indeed in mortal jeopardy? Where is the morality in taking human life over property?

That's not morality of a higher level. It is a corrupted sense of morality if you want to call it morality at all.

I read your caveat, so i will leave my comments about politicians to this. There are no shortage of bad people who seek power and lust for greater authority.

There are no shortage of videos and documentaries showing the disgrace of a justice system we have. There is nothing moral about it. 25 years for non violent crimes, sentencing disparities along racial lines (article just came out from Florida), prosecutorial tactics of PILING on charges to coerce a confession to circumvent the exercising of their 6th Amendment. The "land of the free" is number 1 in the world per capita in putting our citizens in bondage. Old habits die hard i guess.

Powerful and correct.

-----

Why do you conflate conservatism (the right) and libertarianism? Liberals and conservatives are closely aligned with agreement in many areas (authoritarian control, social control, big military). Libertarians differ from liberals and conservatives on most things.

Property rights. Do you think we should have privacy rights?

We can not be claiming to pursue freedom in other countries when we do not have it here.

Humanity. It is applying values. Government should not be doing this. Government needs to protect your right to have value rather than forcing values upon its citizens.

-----

Instead of law enforcement we should have public servants. Fewer laws leads to less need for enforcement. We have way too many laws. Law enforcement should be hated. It should end for the most part.

We need fewer leaders who are politicians.

Regional democracy as a principle also applies to business. Big is bad. Smaller is better. Less bureaucracy. The benefits of big business comes from dealing with government. This fascism needs to stop.

-----

Julian, you know who else needs to be regulated? Voters. They are doing a poor job. Why continue to let them vote? A government agency needs to decide who get to vote.

Yes, the previous paragraph was facetious. As to regulating journalists and politicians. How about not reading/watching bad journalists? How about not voting for bad politicians? This blooming reliance upon government to do it for you is pathetic and it does not work. Regulation is the problem not the solution.

If the argument is that the general public is incapable of making decisions on their own for themselves how in the world can you expect them to pick out good politicians who can do it for everyone? Gosh awful logic to think this. Bizzaro.

-----

The country is so conditioned and lost. Ignorance. The brains are wired to be compliant. Critical thinking has been squashed. The solution to big bad government is bigger government ? Keep voting for authoritarian government and hope it becomes nice. Really? Where is self reliance? Where is wishing for opportunity? Where is wanting to have control over your own life? Where is respect for your fellow man? Why do our primaries have no candidates or one candidates per office? Why do we not wonder about ballot access? I have not seen any suggestions to get off this ignorance treadmill we are upon. The voters are frickin pathetically ignorant.

There's a very long answer to that, but the short answer is: large organizations tend to focus on processes over results. It happens slowly with time (typically as more and more regulations are added). That's why a large contractor might take a year to put in a sink…but they can point to a "process" to offer an explanation of why it's taking/took so long. There's always something. Organizations that focus on processes tend to have lots of administrative overhead. Government entities are the worst…but large private entities can become similar (both working together socializing costs and privatizing gains are the worst of all). There's a reason there are 2.5 people handling insurance claims for every doctor.

I'm not saying that can't be an answer, but seeing the fix to one of the problems "make the ruling class suffer under the same conditions", I'm not sure if that is the answer. Processes can become cumbersome and require too much overhead, they can also become corrupted by individuals seeking greater power. But the beautiful thing about process are that they are created by people and can be changed by people (a point that Julian is making). However, if i am a individual of power do I want a process to change that will cause my power to lessen?

The corruption is not in our government. The corruption is not in the corporation or business. The corruption is not in the media. The corruption is not in systems and processes. The corruption is in people. The corruption stems from too much power or the desire for more power.

The military is a better place to see how this work, because it is such a socialist dictatorship within that community. Compared to the civilian sector the disparity of wealth isn't that great. Those who seek power aren't necessarily seeking more money, but they are still seeking power. Maybe you get a benevolent ruler, whose goals is to meet mission goals but to also care for the people they rule over. Others may seek to meet mission goals as an extension of their own ego and furthering their own level of respect to increase their power and see people as a "resource" (actually its better understood as people's labor and ingenuity) to be harnessed to further their own personal goals. I'm not sure that i consider this to be a either\or, as much as i see it as the possible endpoints on a scaled line. Leaders can fall on the scale and slide one direction or another based on age and maturity or circumstances.

My opinion is that the more a person slides to the endpoint of using their power for their own personal gain the more corrupt that human being is. The more influence that person(s) has or they have the greater the spread of corruption. Because of this you have people that may not be corrupt individuals, but be under corrupting influences. To the point of the debate, they're ignorant, they're frickin ignorant. We've been taught to hate the necessary thing to end corruption or at least lessen the sphere of influence. Power displacement leading to power dispersion.

Let me exemplify how I think this works.

A person says i want to be a soldier. I want to fight for greater ideals of freedom. He\she is taught that it is necessary to fight for freedom that he\she must go kill these human being over here or there. Unbeknownst to him\her the reason for this war lies in the business interest of our nation. At the top of that business is some individuals or an individual that is becoming wealthy because of some government contracts tied to the military. These business people will lobby and donate money to politicians aligned with their business. And at the top of that business pyramid is just some people following the "American Dream" of just make as much money as you can.

So the selflessness of the original actor is still corrupt, because it is heavily influenced by people who seek to enrich themselves. It is corruption.

To a large degree this is my issue with conservatism and libertarianism. For whatever reason you all don't see the corrupting nature of power in its truest form. Thus you keep pointing at things like "governments" The government can't be corrupt, its inanimate, its a conceptual way of seeing things. But the people who are in the government can be corrupt. The politicians can. But what is corrupting them. Well power or the desire for more power.

So again in a capitalist society, what is the manifestation of power? Are we limiting it?

QUOTE(Gray Seal)

Why do you conflate conservatism (the right) and libertarianism? Liberals and conservatives are closely aligned with agreement in many areas (authoritarian control, social control, big military). Libertarians differ from liberals and conservatives on most things.

Property rights. Do you think we should have privacy rights?

We can not be claiming to pursue freedom in other countries when we do not have it here.

Humanity. It is applying values. Government should not be doing this. Government needs to protect your right to have value rather than forcing values upon its citizens.

1. I apologize if it seems like i conflate the two, but i don't really think of you the same. Here is what i think. You have Bud, you have bud light. You have Coors, you have Coors light. You have miller you have miller light. You have Conservatism, you have Conservative-light (Libertarianism). You're not the same, pretty much the same. Also, I've debated quite a few people that called themselves libertarians that went far right and some that went "sort of" left on certain issues. I can tell the difference between a Rand Paul and a Mike Pence though.

2. I'm not sure if you miswrote here or are you asking me if we have property rights and privacy rights. I don't believe either is a natural right but i do believe in the right to both to a degree. TO A DEGREE! Me and you've debated this. I think me and you have debated this on the idea that owning land and natural resources being a natural right. To me the idea is absurd that someone could have an INDIVIDUAL natural right to land or the resources found within.

3. We can claim anything, because there is no shortage of people that will believe it.

4. Government is a tool of the people, by the people, for the people. Those aren't just words it is demonstrable. I can take 20 people and put them on an island and within a year they will be dead (many of them) or they will have some sort of governing agency. Governments do have the right to say what is and is not acceptable behavior and punish those that don't abide by it. The more that a government create rules to the benefit of a minority group over the majority will, the more corrupt the government is. But that goes back to understanding power and corruption.

Governments CANT apply morality. But people can apply morality through governing tools and agents. Such is the way of society.

QUOTE

Instead of law enforcement we should have public servants. Fewer laws leads to less need for enforcement. We have way too many laws. Law enforcement should be hated. It should end for the most part.

We need fewer leaders who are politicians.

I'm not sure any of these statements logically flow for me. Fewer laws doesn't mean we have fewer cop enforcing the fewer laws. I think we too many laws in some areas not enough in others. Law enforcement shouldn't be hated, corruption should. We need politicians to be better leaders serving people. Right now, they aren't leaders serving the masses, but followers of people with extreme amounts of money.

It's like everything you say seem backwards, i almost wonder if you do it on purpose.

QUOTE

Regional democracy as a principle also applies to business. Big is bad. Smaller is better. Less bureaucracy. The benefits of big business comes from dealing with government. This fascism needs to stop.

That's definitely not what she says. You can't stop fascism just by shrinking or regionalizing democracy. You are likely just making a bunch of mini fascist states.

But the beautiful thing about process are that they are created by people and can be changed by people (a point that Julian is making). However, if i am a individual of power do I want a process to change that will cause my power to lessen?

This is the stupid self serving choice of voters. Using government as force to make yourself a winner is a poor reason to have government.

QUOTE(droop224)

He\she is taught that it is necessary to fight for freedom that he\she must go kill these human being over here or there.

People should be taught that this is against voluntary interaction. Government should not be used as a force of aggression. Aggression has consequences.

This is the stupid self serving choice of voters. Using government as force to make yourself a winner is a poor reason to have government.

Yes and the further Right i go the more i see voters voting in a self serving manner. It's a reason why liberals are chastised for their "bleeding hearts". The people the left choose to vote in aren't usually running on a self serving platform as are the people on the Right. There is a reason why it is easer to sell a person on the right the idea its ok to kill unarmed citizens, that we need to go over seas and kill other humans, as much as i have to deal with the sarcasm of mrs p or net (back in the days others) "Oh Droop we're so evil, we're so corrupt, blah blah blah" They don't like my comments about the morality or their politics, that much i know. But they don't address WHY its ok to do this to human beings. Why is it ok to economically oppress them, destabilize their governments so that they war with each other, bribe their government, kill them directly so on and so on.

When i look at platforms of the left i don't see a lot of politics that people support because it makes themselves winners. its usually a position that is trying to reduce harm to humans from other human. whether that harm comes in the physical, economical, or even emotional paths. I'm not saying that the left gets it correct all the time, but their intention tend to be toward equality and fairness. Whereas our counter parts on the right seek power and control.

Gray seal where me and you disagree is where you want less power in government so that it can be harnessed by a non governmental entity. You don't want to disperse power as much as you simple want to shift it to something/someone else.

QUOTE

People should be taught that this is against voluntary interaction. Government should not be used as a force of aggression. Aggression has consequences.

The corruption is not in our government. The corruption is not in the corporation or business. The corruption is not in the media. The corruption is not in systems and processes. The corruption is in people. The corruption stems from too much power or the desire for more power.

Well...yes and no. There are definitely corrupt people in power, but most of the problems aren't due to some Dr Evil (along with his motley assortment of supporters) at the top...or anything close. People do want to succeed. The "one year to put in a sink" example I gave above was a real one. We were able to procure a local contractor to completely renovate the club...the only thing they handed to the larger (large government contractor) was the sink. The entire club (new carpet, paint, et al) was finished in 3 months. The one sink took 16 months. An explanation of exactly why would take a book...but the bottom line problem is processes over results. That does't mean processes don't have their place (they are more efficient in some cases...the reason they exist in the first place, and the bigger the entity the more processes. I have about a hundred similar examples on the civil engineering end in particular. Remember that line from Men in Black where Will Smith says, "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it"? It's true and not just for "mass panics". Mass panics are outlier cases that illustrate the real underlying problem that large entities have with getting things handled. This is why I've brought up DARPA in the past. They're the rare example of a government entity that can get innovation done quickly (and they don't allow their leadership to stay beyond a certain number of years for a reason).

Contrariwise, I think we know where the extra people are. The ratio of teachers to students hasn’t gone down a lot — but the ratio of administrators to students has shot up. Most large public school systems spend more than half their budget on administrators. Similarly, class sizes at most colleges and universities haven’t changed that much — but administrative staff have exploded. There are 2.5 people handling insurance claims for every doctor. Construction sites have always had a lot of people standing around for every one actually working the machine. But now for every person operating the machine there is an army of planners, regulators, lawyers, administrative staff, consultants and so on. (I welcome pointers to good graphs and numbers on this sort of thing.)(snip)

Well, how does bloat come about? Regulations and law are, as Scott mentions, part of the problem. These are all areas either run by the government or with large government involvement. But the real key is, I think lack of competition. These are above all areas with not much competition. In turn, however, they are not by a long shot “natural monopolies” or failure of some free market. The main effect of our regulatory and legal system is not so much to directly raise costs, as it is to lessen competition (that is often its purpose). The lack of competition leads to the cost disease.

There's something about quality of life (which I also agree with...everything is relative, and we believe we are entitled to so much more now than ever before):

QUOTE

For those who don’t remember their Economics classes, imagine a guy who makes $40,000/year and eats chicken for dinner 3 nights a week. He gets a huge 50% raise, to $60,000/year, and suddenly has extra money to spend — his disposable income probably tripled or quadrupled. Before the hedonic treadmill kicks in, and he decides to waste all the money on higher rent and nicer cars, he changes his diet. But he won’t start eating chicken 10 times a week — he’ll start eating steak. When people get more money, they replace cheap “inferior” goods with expensive “superior” goods. And steak is a superior good.But how many times a week will people eat steak? Two? Five? Americans as a whole got really rich in the 1940s and 1950s, and needed someplace to start spending their newfound wealth. What do people spend extra money on? Entertainment is now pretty cheap, and there are only so many nights a week you see a movie, and only so many $20/month MMORPGs you’re going to pay for. You aren’t going to pay 5 times as much for a slightly better video game or movie — and although you might pay double for 3D-Imax, there’s not much room for growth in that 5%.

Another one about administrative overhead form a person working in the hedge fund industry:

QUOTE

Relatedly, a pet theory of mine is that “organizational complexity” imposes enormous and not fully appreciated costs, which probably grow quadratically with organization size. I’d predict, without Googling, that the the US military, just as a function of being so large, has >75% of its personal doing effectively administrative/logistical things, and that you could probably find funny examples of organizational-overhead-proliferation like an HR department so big it needed its own (meta-)HR department.

Since I'm limited in quotes here I'll just offer that I think all of the selected posters make very, VERY good points. They run the gamut from government (administrative overhead, restricting supply and subsidizing demand in education real estate and healthcare, et al) to free market Veblen good examples (and the fear of lawsuits...aviation, playground equipment, ect). But to me this bit sums up the answer to the "corrupt capitalist factor" pretty well:

QUOTE

Any explanation of the form “evil capitalists are scamming the rest of us for profit” has to explain why the cost increases are in the industries least exposed to evil capitalists. K-12 education is entirely nonprofit. Colleges are a mix but generally not owned by a single rich guy who gets all the money. My hospital is owned by an order of nuns; studies show that government hospitals have higher costs than for-profit ones. Meanwhile, the industries with the actual evil capitalists – tech, retail, restaurants, natural resources – seem mostly immune to the cost disease. This is not promising. Also, this wouldn’t explain why so much of the money seems to be going to administrators/bells-and-whistles. If prices increase by $100,000, and the money goes to hiring two extra $50,000/year administrators, how does this help the capitalist profiting off it all?

The people the left choose to vote in aren't usually running on a self serving platform as are the people on the Right.

And I can not think of anything on the left platform (or right) which in not self serving.

I do wish to take power away from government and give it to individuals. Liberty. Freedom. A voluntary society. No authoritarianism.

I do agree with your points on the use of the military. To label it as right wing is nonsense. Unless you are saying both major parties are right wing. That would a good recognition of the true situation of US politics. Both parties are right wing and left wing authoritarianism. Controlled by big money. By the way, big money and government hand in hand is not capitalism, it is fascism.

-----

When are we gonna get some light bulbs on in the voters' brains to start voting against big money? It is not a difficult concept. Why the delusions and ignorance? Bad public education?

A dozen teenagers are killed and we are in storm mode. Kill a few hundred thousand citizens in a foreign land and it is not worth a yawn. Americans look out for themselves and the heck with others. This is scary stuff. We see this politically and militarily. This is a lack of principle. We parade in the streets displaying this prejudice. What nice people not! It is how we teach our kids to think. Look out for yourself, use force, get in the right politically powerful group because government controls who gets ahead. Trample anyone who gets in the way.

I don't think it's possible for the public to be smart enough on everything they need to be smart on to really be a "knowledgeable" voter. Few people have that kind of time, and too few even have accurate enough information available to make an informed judgment. For example, what does, "vote against big money" really mean? At first blush, I'd agree and say, "Yah!" But "vote against big money" is as much a slogan as "vote against violence!"How can anyone disagree with that?I'd have to know the specific issue and I'm not smart enough on most of them, having only partial information available.

I'll reiterate there's little reason for good people to go into politics now. Cost to gains just isn't worth it. I'm amazed that anyone does it.